Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 4/10/2026 overcome the previous rejection in regards to claim 1. However, upon further consideration, the joule heat generating element is mapped to the persistent current SW 240 as taught by Jonas instead of the energy dump unit 250. The persistent current SW 240 resides within the cryostat which resides within the vacuum chamber. Finally, the persistent current SW is at a higher temperature because it is in a resistive state during startup mode while the coil is superconducting (not generating heat).
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 in regards to claim 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation would be to improve the design to be incorporated into an MRI design which requires multiple coils in series as taught by Tsuchiya in [Col. 4, Ln. 41-46]. Applicant respectfully argues “if Tsuchiya’s configuration is adopted, the protection circuit would be connected in parallel with a superconducting coil within the vessel and thus be cooled to the same cryogenic temperature as the superconducting coil”. Applicant’s argument has been considered, but found not persuasive. Jonas is being relied upon for the location of the protection devices/persistent current SW/energy dump unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jonas et al., US9985426 (hereinafter referred to as Jonas).
In regards to claim 1, Jonas teaches a superconducting magnet device (superconducting persistent magnet 200; [Title] & [Fig. 2]) comprising: a vacuum chamber (vacuum in thermal shield 213; [Col. 6, Ln. 26-31] & [Fig. 2]) a superconducting coil (conductive coil 230; [Fig. 2]); and a Joule heat generating element (persistent current SW 240; [Fig. 2]) that is disposed in the vacuum chamber (implicit because the inner chamber is disposed within the vacuum of the thermal shield 213; [Col. 6, Ln. 26-31] & [Fig. 2]) connected in parallel (implicit; [Fig. 2]) to the superconducting coil and is cooled (disposed within inner chamber 220 of cryostat 210; [Col. 6, Ln. 11-12]) to a cooling temperature higher (insulation region 212b; [Col. 6, Ln. 34-41]) than the superconducting coil during an operation (startup operation; [Col. 7, Ln. 43-46]) of the superconducting coil (Examiner’s Note: The persistent current SW is at a higher temperature because it is in a resistive state during startup mode while the coil is superconducting (not generating heat)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas et al., US9985426 (hereinafter referred to as Jonas) in view of Tsuchiya et al., US7196883 (hereinafter referred to as Tsuchiya.
In regards to claim 3, Jonas does not teach wherein the superconducting coil includes a plurality of superconducting coil portions connected in series to form the superconducting coil, the superconducting magnet device includes a plurality of the Joule heat generating elements, and each of the plurality of Joule heat generating elements is connected in parallel to a corresponding superconducting coil portion among the plurality of superconducting coil portions.
Tsuchiya teaches wherein the superconducting coil includes a plurality of superconducting coil portions (x4 of superconducting coils 40, 42, 44, & 46; [Fig. 1]) connected in series (implicit; [Fig. 1]) to form the superconducting coil, the superconducting magnet device includes a plurality of the Joule heat generating elements (x4 each of resistive heaters 60, 62, 64, & 66 and diodes 702, 722, 742, & 762; [Fig. 1]), and each of the plurality of Joule heat generating elements is connected in parallel (implicit; [Fig. 1]) to a corresponding superconducting coil portion among the plurality of superconducting coil portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jonas in order to incorporate wherein the superconducting coil includes a plurality of superconducting coil portions connected in series to form the superconducting coil, the superconducting magnet device includes a plurality of the Joule heat generating elements, and each of the plurality of Joule heat generating elements is connected in parallel to a corresponding superconducting coil portion among the plurality of superconducting coil portions as taught by Tsuchiya. The plurality of heat generating elements would substitute the “one or more diodes and/or resistors” taught within the energy dump unit 250 by Jonas. The motivation would be to improve the design to be incorporated into an MRI design which requires multiple coils in series.
In regards to claim 4, Jonas teaches the superconducting magnet device according to claim 3, further comprising: a high-temperature superconducting current lead (leads 207 & 208, made of copper; [Col. 7, Ln. 15-17]) that connects the Joule heat generating element and the corresponding superconducting coil portion (implicit; [Fig. 2]) (Examiner’s Note: One skilled in the art would obviously use copper for the leads 207 & 208 as the same material used for leads 203 & 204; and also, know a lead made of copper is capable of handling high-temperatures.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 & 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 2, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination or limitations including " a first cooling stage that is thermally coupled to the Joule heat generating element and cooled to a first cooling temperature, and a second cooling stage that is thermally coupled to the superconducting coil and cooled to a second cooling temperature lower than the first cooling temperature.”
In regards to claim 5, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination or limitations including " wherein the Joule heat generating element includes a non-linear resistor.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights